Dubstepforum.com

The British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) says it employs 120 dyslexic and dyspraxic staff for code breaking and counter-espionage.

Chairman of the dyslexic and dyspraxic committee, known just as Matt, said the neuro-diverse staff had "spiky skills" where they may excel in analytical areas at expense of others.

"What people don't realise is that people with neuro diversity usually have a 'spikyskills' profile, which means that certain skill areas will be below par and others may be well above," he told The Sunday Times.

"My reading might be slower than some individuals and maybe my spelling is appalling, and my handwriting definitely is ... but if you look at the positive side, my 3D spacial-perception awareness and creativity is in the top one percent of my peer group."

The spy agency employed some 5300 staff for the purposes of signals intelligence and information assurance to Blighty and the Five Eyes partners including Australia and New Zealand. It was one of three intelligence agencies which included the Security Service (MI5) and the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6).

The team of 120 were employed in part for their "dispassionate, logical and analytical" approach, the agency said.

An endless ream of disclosures from NSA leaker Edward Snowden has revealed the agencies' clandestine British base dedicated to tapping undersea fibre cables and comes after it launched a video game as part of a recruitment drive.

Reg man Bob Dormon published an in-depth geek guide on the agency and his former employer ®.

Dear Fabian Hamilton,

I am writing to you regarding the airstrikes on the 'Islamic State' (IS) in Iraq and to make my views clear to you as my elected representative as to how I think you should act in the upcoming Parliamentary vote on the issue.

Firstly, I have nothing against any military action by air-based military units within Iraq if Iraq's government explicitly requests so and no civilians are harmed. I think it would be best to err on the side of caution and only hit only openly militaristic elements to avoid recreating the conditions that led to a substantial acceptance of anti-US/coalition forces due to 'collateral damage' in killing innocent people.

Secondly, there appears to be no reason to send land-based military forces when there are already substantial, if currently awkwardly positioned, forces already present. The Iraq army, militias and Kurds have already shown some ability to resist insurgent forces on their own in a way that does not alienate the resident population as much as foreign forces. Of course, there are many who complain about the Shia militias committing revenge attacks on Sunnis, and the Iraq government is not keen on a strongly independent Kurdish state, but this can be dealt with in the course of addressing the more important issue of the IS. This strategy requires a more nuanced approach to keep all parties happy, and is not as simple as sending our own army in with the Americans, but will probably be the best way for achieving balance and peaceful stability in the long run.

Finally, I am completely against any military incursions in to Syria. Any intrusion by NATO/US-coalition forces is almost certainly illegal and any action to deal with IS in Iraq can be coordinated to push them out of the country through the Syrian border for the boundary to then be sealed and policed by the UN if necessary. To be honest though, it would be far more humanitarian to contain the IS in Iraq and prevent them retreating in to Syria to inflict more damage on that country. It would also be prudent to stop dealings with potentially questionable anti-government forces in that country, but that is another matter (anyway, I certainly hope it does not literally blow up in our faces later due to mishandling).